DEATH-ROW
MUST NOT BECOME AN ORGAN-FARM:
HOW
TO AVOID THE MAYAN PROTOCOL
SYNOPSIS:
Objections to organ donation from death-row
often
arise from bad paradigms
set by the ancient Maya Indians and the modern Chinese.
As civilization advances,
we will not simply harvest the re-usable organs of condemned prisoners.
Rather, we will apply very careful safeguards
to make certain that the donors were justly convicted and sentenced
and that they have given their full and voluntary consent
to having their organs transplanted into the bodies of strangers
after the donors have
been executed and declared dead.
OUTLINE:
1.
CHINA SET A VERY BAD EXAMPLE: PRISON AS ORGAN-FARM.
2. HATRED OF MURDERERS LEADS TO VIOLENT SUGGESTIONS.
3. DOCTORS WILL DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THE EXECUTION.
4.
TRANSPLANT SURGEONS WILL BE FAR AWAY.
5. INFORMED, VOLUNTARY CONSENT FROM THE DONOR.
6.
BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT AN ORGAN-FARM LOOKS LIKE,
WE CAN AVOID ALL OF ITS PROBLEMS
BY CREATING CAREFUL PROTOCOLS FOR ACCEPTING
ORGANS
VOLUNTARILY DONATED BY EXECUTED PRISONERS.
DEATH-ROW
MUST NOT BECOME AN ORGAN-FARM:
HOW
TO AVOID THE MAYAN PROTOCOL
by
James Leonard Park
When we consider the healthy organs of prisoners on
death-row,
one easy temptation is to declare that we will just take their organs
as part of the process of executing the prisoners.
Arthur Caplan has dubbed this the "Mayan Protocol".
The Maya Indians of Central America
were known to cut the beating hearts out of their captives
as a part of their religious practice.
Of course, no anesthetic was used.
And the prisoners died immediately after having their hearts
removed.
The height of Maya culture was from about 250 to 900 AD.
But such practices do not belong only to the ancient
world.
Modern China has harvested organs from death-row prisoners,
even including 'criminals' detained for their religious
or political beliefs.
Organ-harvesting in China probably includes
anesthetizing the prisoner
before any cutting begins for harvesting healthy organs.
And because of attention paid by the rest of the
world,
China has taken some steps, at least officially,
to make
organ-harvesting in China more ethical.
The selling of organs
is no longer permitted.
Prisoners are supposed to give
their consent before organs are taken.
But because China is still a closed society,
we in the West cannot be certain of the depth of such reforms.
We can hope that China has made meaningful changes
in its former practices of taking organs for transplant.
And if China adapts any of the safeguards
suggested below,
their organ-harvesting practices will become even more ethical.
China announced in 2012 that organ-donations from
prisoners
would be phased out over the next five years.
Will China be able to replace the thousands of organs per year
that were coming from condemned prisoners?
Organ-donation in the United States and other
advanced counties
will make certain that the donors were
justly convicted.
And we must be certain that they voluntarily give their
organs.
Also, the donor must be completely and irrevocably dead
before we harvest organs to transplant into waiting
patients.
1. CHINA SET A VERY BAD EXAMPLE:
PRISON AS ORGAN-FARM.
Perhaps China is now changing its practices
of organ-harvesting,
but in its worst days, China used prisons as organ-banks.
We object to the old Chinese model for organ procurement
for the following reasons:
Some prisoners in China were convicted of
opposing the government.
In most other places, resisting the established government
would never be an offense punished by death.
Of course, there were other kinds of criminals in Chinese prisons.
But sometimes even economic crimes were punished by death.
Organs were sometimes harvested
once a buyer or
other recipient was identified as a match.
In other words, in the bad old days of 'transplant tourism',
a foreigner could arrive and get a matching organ within a
day or two.
This means some
prisoner was killed to provide the needed organs.
That prisoner was kept alive until the authorities in charge
had a recipient lined up for the organs.
Then the prisoner was killed and the organs were harvested.
There was no separation of executioners and
transplant doctors.
Perhaps some prisoners were shot
before they were opened up for
harvesting their organs.
But at other times it seems that they were only anesthetized
before their organs were removed and transplanted into waiting
patients.
This was the Mayan Protocol:
Removing the organs was
the actual cause of death.
Informed consent was rarely meaningful.
Some prisoners might have been forced to sign 'donation' documents.
But there was no way to determine how voluntary such decisions were.
And because they were already condemned to death,
their organs could be taken in any case,
even if the prisoner did not agree.
Often the remains of the 'criminals' were cremated
before the family could view the body,
possibly to hide the fact that organs had been taken.
At the highest point of organ-transplantation in
China,
more than half of all organs
came from prisoners.
When ordinary citizens wanted to donate their organs
after death,
they were often turned away
because there was just
no easy way to accept such donations.
And the government already had enough organs
ready to be harvested in their organ-banks:
the many prisons of China.
These faults of the Chinese system
sometimes form the backdrop for discussion
of organs to be voluntarily donated by American prisoners on
death-row.
Opponents rightly object to 'taking' organs from prisoners,
no matter how terrible their crimes were.
But all of the faults of this very bad pattern from
China
can be corrected in a
new system that allows American prisoners
(and prisoners in other advanced countries)
to donate their organs after death.
2. HATRED OF MURDERERS
LEADS
TO VIOLENT SUGGESTIONS.
Some people who have given little prior thought to
organ-donation
become preoccupied with the crime
that put the murderer on death-row.
And their understandable negative feelings about the prisoner
stand in the way of reasonable organ-donation after execution.
This feeling of hatred and anger
leads to suggesting that the condemned criminal
be taken to the operating room
to have his or her organs
removed as the means of execution.
Sometimes this Mayan Protocol would include using anesthetic.
But the method of causing
death is the removal of vital organs,
rather than some other method of execution such as lethal injection,
which is now widely used as a method of causing death.
The family and friends of murder victims
might be the most inclined to inflict pain and harm on the murderer
—just
as the murderer had no mercy for his or her victims.
This is a very human and understandable response.
And for this reason (among others)
the state must be the
agent of execution
not any of the friends or relatives of the murder victim.
The family and friends of the murdered person will
be offered
the opportunity to be official witnesses of the execution.
And they might have a special room or viewing window
so they can be together when the murderer is put to death.
But no one will be offered the opportunity to become an executioner.
The judicial process that led to the sentence of
death
included hearing the suffering of the victim's family and friends,
but no one who suffered as the result of the murder
was permitted to
serve on the jury.
The jury was chosen to eliminate
any possible preconceptions
and prejudices
concerning the case.
The judge and jury heard testimony from all sides,
presented with good legal advice for the prosecution and the defense.
And they reached the best decision they could,
given all of the evidence
and testimony.
After the death-sentence has been properly imposed,
the prison officials who will carry out the execution
are expected to perform their duties in a professional manner,
without any hatred or malice toward the condemned prisoner.
3. DOCTORS WILL DISTANCE
THEMSELVES
FROM THE EXECUTION.
The medical ethics of many professionals
organizations of doctors
often says that they must
not cooperate with the death-penalty.
But obvious exceptions are made for pronouncing death.
Only licensed physicians may complete and sign death-certificates.
Medical information must be provided to the executioners.
But usually no doctor is
present for the actual moment of death.
After the prison officials employed to carry out the
sentence of death
have completed their work, they step back, take a deep breath,
and then invite the waiting prison doctor or some other physician
to enter the death-chamber and to pronounce the prisoner dead.
All doctors involved in certifying that the
prisoner has been executed
and that this prisoner is now completely and irretrievably dead
shall not be involved
in any future medical procedures on this body.
Explicitly, they may not be part of any team of doctors
that might become involved in organ-transplantation
after the death has been officially declared, certified, &
recorded.
4. TRANSPLANT SURGEONS WILL
BE FAR
AWAY.
Any orderly process of execution followed by organ
donation
will probably be separated by several miles of actual geography.
No organs will be harvested
in the death-chamber.
The brain-dead body of the executed prisoner
will be attached to 'life-support' machinery
while it is moved several miles to the transplant center
that has agreed in advance to accept the donation
of these organs from this executed prisoner.
The brain-dead body will be transported in
a medical vehicle,
which is equipped to provide all the necessary supports
to make certain that the donated organs arrive in good condition.
Such careful transportation of the body of the
organ-donor
will be better than the usually way
that donated organs arrive.
Because death by accident cannot be predicted in advance,
most organ-donors were not prepared or tested before their
deaths.
They were accidentally killed on the highway, for example,
and if they were organ-donors,
the ambulance took their bodies to the transplant center,
where their undamaged organs were evaluated for possible transplant.
At the receiving door of the transplant center,
the brain-dead donors can all be treated alike.
However, in this case, the transplant team will know exactly
what organs will become available on the day of execution.
5. INFORMED, VOLUNTARY
CONSENT
FROM THE DONOR.
In contrast to the Mayan Protocol,
the death-row prisoner who agrees in advance
to donate his or her
organs after execution
can prove in all reasonable and meaningful ways
that the choice to donate is completely
voluntary.
The donor must prove beyond any reasonable doubt
that the gift of life was an
act of utterly free will.
The thinking of the potential organ-donor is
explored in this chapter:
"Can a Prisoner Ever Make a Free Choice?"
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/FREE-PRI.html
The ten safeguards are briefly presented below:
A. A FORMAL, RECORDED REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
When the prisoner is best able to make a wise
decision
about donating organs after execution,
he or she (in the presence of unbiased witnesses)
makes a formal request to donate his or her organs after death.
The neutral witnesses will make certain
that there was no pressure, manipulation, or coercion.
B. TWELVE WRITTEN REQUESTS
FOR VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
To make certain these requests for donation are
well-considered,
they must be re-affirmed once a month for at least a year.
Someone completely independent of the prison system
must collect these written request for voluntary execution,
which might possibly be followed by organ-donation.
C.
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM FAMILY MEMBERS &
FRIENDS
Family and friends who are not under any pressure
from anyone
shall agree in writing to approve organ-donation
after death.
Family members must be free to say "no" in the face of any request
from the prison system or any other part of the government.
D. STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT
FROM MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY
If the prisoner has any connection with a member of
the clergy
or some other such respected moral leader,
this person can also write a statement supporting
organ-donation.
This member of the clergy must also have the unquestionable capacity
to say "no" to any request that seems inappropriate for any reason.
E.
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM LAWYERS
WHO HAVE
HANDLED THIS CASE
The lawyers who defended the prisoner against the
charge of murder
or the lawyers who tried to get the death-sentence reduced to
life-in-prison
can also add their written statements to the pile of testimony
proving that the prisoner is freely choosing to donate organs after
death.
F.
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER PRISONERS
Because the organ-donor has probably talked with
other prisoners
about the possibility of organ-donation after execution,
other prisoners can add their written statements to the collected
evidence.
And, of course, these additional written statements from other
prisoners
must also be free of coercion or reward of any sort.
G.
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM PRISON EMPLOYEES
Prison guards and educational and social workers
might have discussed the plan for donation with the prisoner.
If they also believe that it is a free choice,
let them create their own statements supporting this decision.
H.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OPPONENTS OF THE
DEATH-PENALTY
TO CONVINCE THE PRISONER TO CHANGE HIS OR HER
MIND
There are organizations opposed to all forms of
capital punishment.
Let them also try to change the mind of the prisoner.
If they cannot convince the prisoner to stay alive until natural death,
let those facts be recorded in the most appropriate ways.
I.
PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS
Even if there is small likelihood of diminished
mental capacity,
it would be more convincing to all distant doubters
if a psychological professional were to interview the
prisoner
and make certain that this option of organ-donation after execution
is really the full and free decision of the prisoner
—not
the result of any undue influence from anyone, anywhere.
J.
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM ANY OTHER PERSONS
Each individual prisoner who wants to donate organs
can think of other special persons to create supportive
statements,
which will tend in the same direction:
This prisoner is voluntarily choosing to donate
organs after death.
Additional safeguards might be relevant
in any particular case.
But these 10 safeguards show that several other people
affirm the choice of organ-donation after execution.
It would not be satisfactory in the Western world
merely to have a signed statement of consent from the prisoner.
If the exploration of organ-donation after execution
is spread over at least one year
and if several trustworthy persons
have discussed
this option with the inmate
and found it to be a free, wise, & reasonable choice of
the prisoner,
then some critics will be assured that the donation was voluntary.
We probably will not see such care used
in China,
but the more fully the Chinese embrace any of these 10 safeguards
the more convinced the rest of the world will be
that condemned prisoners have voluntarily agreed
to have their organs transplanted after they are finished with them.
In addition, family members and friends will not
cooperate
with any execution they believe to be unjust.
Seeking their approval might be another opportunity to appeal the
verdict.
6. BECAUSE
WE
KNOW WHAT AN ORGAN-FARM LOOKS LIKE,
WE CAN
AVOID ALL OF ITS PROBLEMS
BY CREATING CAREFUL PROTOCOLS
FOR
ACCEPTING ORGANS
VOLUNTARILY DONATED BY EXECUTED
PRISONERS.
We can avoid the Mayan Protocol
and the worst practices in China
by careful safeguards to make certain that prisoners on
death-row
have considered several ways of disposing of their remains after
death.
And a few have voluntarily
chosen to donate their organs
so that other human beings might live longer.
When any country creates a protocol
for accepting
organs from executed prisoners, it can be linked below.
The following questions should be asked:
Was the prisoner justly convicted of a crime
that most people regard as worthy of the death-penalty?
How often do prisoners refuse
to donate their organs after death?
Does "no" really mean "no"?
Will their organs be buried or burned with the rest of their bodies
if they refuse to donate their organs after execution?
What fulfilled safeguards prove that the donation was voluntary?
Was the decision to execute the prisoner
completely separate from possible organ-donation?
Was the process of donation after death
completely free of manipulation or reward?
Created
April 28, 2011; Revised 5-4-2011; 5-6-2011; 5-11-2011; 10-19-2011;
4-18-2012; 3-23-2013; 9-7-2013; 10-4-2013; 5-21-2014; 4-4-2015;
9-3-2016; 4-13-2018; 6-5-2019; 7-31-2020;
AUTHOR:
James Park is an independent thinker,
living and writing in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Much more about him will be discovered on his website:
James
Leonard Park—Free
Library
Go to other
on-line
essays by James Park,
organized into 10 subject-areas.